1 of 48 

SEC Petition Evaluation Report 

Petition SEC-00096

Report Rev #: 0 Report Submittal Date: January 21, 2009

Subject Expert(s): Daniel H. Stempfley 

Site Expert(s): N/A 

Petition Administrative Summary 

Petition Under Evaluation 

Petition # Petition 

Type 

Petition 

Qualification Date DOE/AWE Facility Name 

SEC-00096 83.13 October 16, 2007 Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant (WAPDP) 

Petitioner Class Definition 

All Testers and Laboratory Researchers (to include Research Group Leaders) who worked in the L Building (and K 

Building as applicable) at Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant from 1942 through 1944. 

Class Evaluated by NIOSH 

All Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked on the development of the ionic centrifuge at the Westinghouse 

Atomic Power Development Plant in East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, from August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1944. 

NIOSH-Proposed Class to be Added to the SEC 

All Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked at Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant in East 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania from August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1944, for a number of work days aggregating at 

least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the 

parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the SEC. 

Related Petition Summary Information 

SEC Petition Tracking #(s) Petition Type DOE/AWE Facility Name Petition Status 

N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Related Evaluation Report Information 

Report Title DOE/AWE Facility Name 

N/A N/A 

ORAU Lead Technical Evaluator: Daniel H. Stempfley ORAU Review Completed By: Karin Jessen 

Peer Review Completed By: [Signature on file] 1/21/2009

LaVon Rutherford Date 

SEC Petition Evaluation Reviewed By: [Signature on file] 1/22/2009

J. W. Neton Date 

SEC Evaluation Approved By: [Signature on file] 1/22/2009

Larry Elliott Date 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

2 of 48 

This page intentionally left blank 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

3 of 48 

Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00096 

Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant (WAPDP) 

This evaluation report by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

addresses a class of employees proposed for addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) per the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7384 et seq. (EEOICPA) and 42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as 

Members of the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000. 

Petitioner-Requested Class Definition

Petition SEC-00096, qualified on October 16, 2007, requested that NIOSH consider the following 

class: All Testers and Laboratory Researchers (to include Research Group Leaders) who worked in 

the L Building (and K Building as applicable) at Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant 

from 1942 through 1944. 

Class Evaluated by NIOSH

Based on its preliminary research, NIOSH modified the petitioner-requested class. NIOSH evaluated 

the following class: All Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked on the development of 

the ionic centrifuge at the Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant in East Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, from August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1944. 

NIOSH-Proposed Class to be Added to the SEC

Based on its full research of the class under evaluation, NIOSH has defined a single class of 

employees for which NIOSH cannot estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy. The NIOSHproposed class includes all Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked at Westinghouse 

Atomic Power Development Plant in East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania from August 13, 1942 through 

December 31, 1944, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either 

solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for 

one or more other classes of employees in the SEC. The class under evaluation was modified (see 

Section 3.0 below) because (1) the definition of the East Pittsburgh location encompassed two 

Westinghouse facilities; and (2) although it is apparent that there were a limited number of personnel 

directly involved in the ionic centrifuge research under evaluation, the Department of Labor (DOL) 

cannot distinguish specific workers or work locations for the NIOSH-proposed class. 

Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction

Per EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1), NIOSH has established that it does not have access to 

sufficient information to: (1) estimate the maximum radiation dose, for every type of cancer for which 

radiation doses are reconstructed, that could have been incurred in plausible circumstances by any 

member of the class; or (2) estimate radiation doses of members of the class more precisely than an 

estimate of maximum dose. Information available from the site profile and additional resources is not 

sufficient to document or estimate the maximum internal and external potential exposure to members 

of the proposed class under plausible circumstances during the specified period. 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

4 of 48 

Health Endangerment Determination

Per EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3), a health endangerment determination is required because 

NIOSH has determined that it does not have sufficient information to estimate dose for the members 

of the proposed class. 

NIOSH did not identify any evidence supplied by the petitioners or from other resources that would 

establish that the proposed class was exposed to radiation during a discrete incident likely to have 

involved exceptionally high-level exposures. However, evidence indicates that some workers in the 

proposed class may have accumulated substantial chronic exposures through episodic intakes of 

radionuclides, combined with external exposures to gamma, beta, and neutron radiation. 

Consequently, NIOSH has determined that health was endangered for those workers covered by this 

evaluation who were employed for at least 250 aggregated work days either solely under their 

employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for other SEC 

classes (excluding aggregate work day requirements). 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

5 of 48 

Table of Contents 

Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00096,.............................................................................................. 3 

1.0 Purpose and Scope.......................................................................................................................... 7 

2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 7 

3.0 SEC-00096, Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant Class Definitions........................ 8 

3.1 Petitioner-Requested Class Definition and Basis.................................................................. 8 

3.2 Class Evaluated by NIOSH ................................................................................................... 9 

3.3 NIOSH-Proposed Class to be Added to the SEC.................................................................. 9 

4.0 Data Sources Reviewed by NIOSH to Evaluate the Class........................................................... 10 

4.1 Site Profile Technical Basis Documents (TBDs)................................................................ 10 

4.2 Technical Information Bulletins (TIBs).............................................................................. 10 

4.3 Facility Employees and Experts.......................................................................................... 11 

4.4 Previous Dose Reconstructions........................................................................................... 11 

4.5 NIOSH Data Capture Efforts and Site Research Database ................................................. 12 

4.6 Documentation and/or Affidavits Provided by Petitioners ................................................. 12 

5.0 Radiological Operations Relevant to the Class Evaluated by NIOSH......................................... 12 

5.1 Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant and Process Descriptions ..................... 12 

5.1.1 Preparation of Uranium for the Stagg Field Experiment......................................... 18 

5.1.2 Development and Pilot-Scale Production of Uranium Oxide Fuel Elements ......... 19 

5.1.3 Development Work Associated with Uranium Enrichment.................................... 20 

5.1.3.1 Centrifuge (mechanical)........................................................................... 21 

5.1.3.2 Oak Ridge Electromagnetic (Calutron) and Gaseous Diffusion Support. 21 

5.1.3.3 Ionic Centrifuge (modified magnetron).................................................... 22 

5.2 Radiological Exposure Sources from WAPDP Operations................................................. 22 

5.2.1 Internal Radiological Exposure Sources ................................................................. 23 

5.2.1.1 Uranium.................................................................................................... 23 

5.2.2 External Radiological Exposure Sources ................................................................ 23 

5.2.2.1 Beta-Photon .............................................................................................. 23 

5.2.2.2 Neutron..................................................................................................... 24 

5.2.3 Incidents .................................................................................................................. 24 

6.0 Summary of Available Monitoring Data for the Class Evaluated by NIOSH ............................. 24 

7.0 Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction for the Class Evaluated by NIOSH...................................... 25 

7.1 Pedigree of Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant Data................................... 25 

7.2 Evaluation of Bounding Internal Radiation Doses at WAPDP........................................... 26 

7.2.1 Evaluation of Bounding Process-Related Internal Doses........................................ 26 

7.2.1.1 Alternative Internal Data Source-Uranium Compounds.......................... 26 

7.2.1.2 Residual Contamination ........................................................................... 27 

7.2.2 Internal Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion ............................................. 27 

7.3 Evaluation of Bounding External Radiation Doses at WAPDP.......................................... 27 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

6 of 48 

7.3.1 Evaluation of Bounding Process-Related External Doses....................................... 27 

7.3.1.1 Alternative Data Sources-External Dose.................................................. 27 

7.3.1.2 Residual Contamination ........................................................................... 28 

7.3.2 Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant Occupational X-Ray 

Examinations....................................................................................................................... 28 

7.3.3 External Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion............................................ 29 

7.4 Evaluation of Petition Basis for SEC-00096....................................................................... 29 

7.4.1 Lack of Records....................................................................................................... 29 

7.5 Other Potential SEC Issues Relevant to the Petition Identified During the Evaluation...... 29 

7.6 Summary of Feasibility Findings for Petition SEC-00096.................................................. 30 

8.0 Evaluation of Health Endangerment for Petition SEC-00096...................................................... 30 

9.0 Class Conclusion for Petition SEC-00096 ................................................................................... 31 

10.0 References .................................................................................................................................... 33 

Attachment 1: Data Capture Synopsis................................................................................................... 37 

Tables 

4-1: No. of WAPDP Claims Submitted Under the Dose Reconstruction Rule..................................... 11 

5-1: Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant Timeline.......................................................... 15 

7-1: Summary of Feasibility Findings for SEC-00096.......................................................................... 30 

Figures 

Figure 5-1: Top View of East Pittsburgh Floor Plan............................................................................. 13 

Figure 5-2: Map of Westinghouse Electric Corporation Research Laboratories .................................. 14 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

7 of 48 

SEC Petition Evaluation Report for SEC-00096

ATTRIBUTION AND ANNOTATION: This is a single-author document. All conclusions drawn from 

the data presented in this evaluation were made by the ORAU Team Lead Technical Evaluator: 

Daniel H. Stempfley, Dade Moeller & Associates. These conclusions were peer-reviewed by the 

individuals listed on the cover page. The rationales for all conclusions in this document are explained 

in the associated text.

1.0 Purpose and Scope 

This report evaluates the feasibility of reconstructing doses for all Atomic Weapons Employer 

employees who worked on the development of the ionic centrifuge at the Westinghouse Atomic 

Power Development Plant in East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, from August 13, 1942 through December 

31, 1944. It provides information and analyses germane to considering a petition for adding a class of 

employees to the congressionally-created SEC. 

This report does not make any determinations concerning the feasibility of dose reconstruction that 

necessarily apply to any individual energy employee who might require a dose reconstruction from 

NIOSH. This report also does not contain the final determination as to whether the proposed class 

will be added to the SEC (see Section 2.0). 

This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the requirements of EEOICPA, 42 C.F.R. pt. 83, 

and the guidance contained in the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support’s (OCAS) Internal 

Procedures for the Evaluation of Special Exposure Cohort Petitions, OCAS-PR-004. 

2.0 Introduction 

Both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. pt. 83 require NIOSH to evaluate qualified petitions requesting that the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) add a class of employees to the SEC. The 

evaluation is intended to provide a fair, science-based determination of whether it is feasible to 

estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation doses of the class of employees through NIOSH dose 

reconstructions.1

 

42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1) states: Radiation doses can be estimated with sufficient accuracy if NIOSH 

has established that it has access to sufficient information to estimate the maximum radiation dose, 

for every type of cancer for which radiation doses are reconstructed, that could have been incurred in 

plausible circumstances by any member of the class, or if NIOSH has established that it has access to 

sufficient information to estimate the radiation doses of members of the class more precisely than an 

estimate of the maximum radiation dose.

 

Under 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3), if it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy radiation doses 

for members of the class, then NIOSH must determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that such 

radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of the class The regulation requires 

 

1

 NIOSH dose reconstructions under EEOICPA are performed using the methods promulgated under 42 C.F.R. pt. 82 and 

the detailed implementation guidelines available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

8 of 48 

 

NIOSH to assume that any duration of unprotected exposure may have endangered the health of 

members of a class when it has been established that the class may have been exposed to radiation 

during a discrete incident likely to have involved levels of exposure similarly high to those occurring 

during nuclear criticality incidents. If the occurrence of such an exceptionally high-level exposure has 

not been established, then NIOSH is required to specify that health was endangered for those workers 

who were employed for at least 250 aggregated work days within the parameters established for the 

class or in combination with work days within the parameters established for other SEC classes 

(excluding aggregate work day requirements). 

NIOSH is required to document its evaluation in a report, and to do so, relies upon both its own dose 

reconstruction expertise as well as technical support from its contractor, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities (ORAU). Once completed, NIOSH provides the report to both the petitioner(s) and to the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (Board). The Board will consider the NIOSH 

evaluation report, together with the petition, petitioner(s) comments, and other information the Board 

considers appropriate, in order to make recommendations to the Secretary of HHS on whether or not 

to add one or more classes of employees to the SEC. Once NIOSH has received and considered the 

advice of the Board, the Director of NIOSH will propose a decision on behalf of HHS. The Secretary 

of HHS will make the final decision, taking into account the NIOSH evaluation, the advice of the 

Board, and the proposed decision issued by NIOSH. As part of this decision process, petitioners may 

seek a review of certain types of final decisions issued by the Secretary of HHS.2

 

3.0 SEC-00096, Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant Class 

Definitions 

The following subsections address the evolution of the class definition for SEC-00096, Westinghouse 

Atomic Power Development Plant (WAPDP). When a petition is submitted, the requested class 

definition is reviewed as submitted. Based on its review of the available site information and data, 

NIOSH will make a determination whether to qualify for full evaluation all, some, or no part of the 

petitioner-proposed class. If some portion of the petitioner-proposed class is qualified, NIOSH will 

specify that class along with a justification for any modification of the petitioner’s class. After a full 

evaluation of the qualified class, NIOSH will determine whether to propose a class for addition to the 

SEC and will specify that proposed class definition. 

3.1 Petitioner-Requested Class Definition and Basis 

Petition SEC-00096, qualified on October 16, 2007, requested that NIOSH consider the following 

class for addition to the SEC: All Testers and Laboratory Researchers (to include Research Group 

Leaders) who worked in the L Building (and K Building as applicable) at Westinghouse Atomic Power 

Development Plant from 1942 through 1944.

The petitioner provided information and affidavit statements in support of the petitioner’s belief that 

accurate dose reconstruction over time is impossible for WAPDP workers in question. NIOSH 

2

 See 42 C.F.R. pt. 83 for a full description of the procedures summarized here. Additional internal procedures are 

available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

9 of 48 

deemed the following information and affidavit statements sufficient to qualify SEC-00096 for 

evaluation: 

Inasmuch as EEOICPA BULLETIN NO. 02-02, March 29, 2002, explicitly states that records 

have not been found for employees at the Westinghouse East Pittsburgh site, document 02-02 

satisfies the requirement of Form B, Section F-2, regarding petition SEC-00096. 

Based on its research and data capture efforts for WAPDP, NIOSH determined that there was the 

potential for weapons-related radiological work at the WAPDP site. The weapons-related radiological 

work involved the use of a modified version of a laboratory-scale magnetron, also called an “ionic 

centrifuge,” which was evaluated as a potential uranium enrichment mechanism. NIOSH also 

determined that WAPDP radiological monitoring records are not complete for this radiological work 

during the time period under evaluation. NIOSH concluded that there is sufficient information to 

support the petition basis that internal and external radiation exposures and radiation doses were not 

adequately monitored for the petitioner-proposed class involved in the ionic centrifuge work at 

WAPDP, either through personal monitoring or area monitoring. The information and statements 

provided by the petitioner qualified the petition for further consideration by NIOSH, the Board, and 

HHS. The details of the petition basis are addressed in Section 7.4. 

3.2 Class Evaluated by NIOSH 

Based on its preliminary research, NIOSH modified the petitioner-proposed class because the 

definition of the East Pittsburgh location encompassed two Westinghouse facilities, including the 

Westinghouse Electric plant in East Pittsburgh and the Westinghouse Research Laboratories in East 

Pittsburgh-Forest Hills. Therefore, a review of the potential atomic weapons research that may have 

occurred at the Westinghouse-East Pittsburgh location required NIOSH to modify the petitionerproposed class to include all AWE employees rather than just those working in the L Building. 

NIOSH also modified the start date to be consistent with the start of the Manhattan Engineering 

District (MED). Therefore, NIOSH defined the following class for further evaluation: all Atomic 

Weapons Employer employees who worked on the development of the ionic centrifuge at WAPDP in 

East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, from August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1944. 

3.3 NIOSH-Proposed Class to be Added to the SEC 

Based on its research of the class under evaluation, NIOSH has defined a single class of employees for 

which NIOSH cannot estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy. The NIOSH-proposed class 

to be added to the SEC includes all Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked at 

Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant in East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania from August 13, 

1942 through December 31, 1944, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, 

occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the 

parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the SEC. The class under 

evaluation was modified because (1) the definition of the East Pittsburgh location encompassed two 

Westinghouse facilities (the Electric Plant in East Pittsburgh and the Research Facility in Forest 

Hills); and (2) although it is apparent that there were a limited number of personnel directly involved 

in the ionic centrifuge research under evaluation, the DOL cannot distinguish specific workers or 

work locations for the NIOSH-proposed class. Therefore, based on a NIOSH-DOL discussion, the 

direction was to recommend all workers/employees who worked at WAPDP. 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

10 of 48 

4.0 Data Sources Reviewed by NIOSH to Evaluate the Class 

NIOSH data capture efforts for the WAPDP site focused on DOE databases, Westinghouse historical 

archives, worker outreach, the NRC, and the Internet. Attachment 1 contains a summary of WAPDP 

documents. The summary specifically identifies data capture details and general descriptions of the 

documents retrieved. 

NIOSH identified and reviewed numerous data sources to determine information relevant to 

determining the feasibility of dose reconstruction for the class of employees under evaluation. This 

included determining the availability of information on personal monitoring, area monitoring, 

industrial processes, and radiation source materials. The following subsections summarize the data 

sources identified and reviewed by NIOSH. 

4.1 Site Profile Technical Basis Documents (TBDs) 

A Site Profile provides specific information concerning the documentation of historical practices at 

the specified site. Dose reconstructors can use the Site Profile to evaluate internal and external 

dosimetry data for monitored and unmonitored workers, and to supplement, or substitute for, 

individual monitoring data. A Site Profile consists of an Introduction and five Technical Basis 

Documents (TBDs), or Site Profile Sections, which provide process history information, information 

on personal and area monitoring, radiation source descriptions, and references to primary documents 

relevant to the radiological operations at the site. The Site Profile for a small site may consist of a 

single document. As part of NIOSH’s evaluation detailed herein, it examined the following TBDs for 

insights into WAPDP operations or related topics/operations at other sites. 

• Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium and Thorium Metals, BattelleTBD-6000; Rev. F0; December 13, 2006; SRDB Ref ID: 30671 

• Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Refined Uranium and Thorium, Battelle-TBD6001; Rev. F0; December 13, 2006; SRDB Ref ID: 30673 

• TBD for the Y-12 National Security Complex – Occupational Internal Dose, ORAUT-TKBS0014-5; Rev. 01; May 10, 2005; SRDB Ref ID: 20206 

• TBD for the Y-12 National Security Complex – Occupational External Dose, ORAUT-TKBS0014-6; Rev. 00 PC-1; October 11, 2005; SRDB Ref ID: 20207 

• Site Profile for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, ORAUT-TKBS-0049; Rev. 01; April 

2, 2007; SRDB Ref ID: 31090 

4.2 Technical Information Bulletins (TIBs) 

A Technical Information Bulletin (TIB) is a general working document that provides guidance for 

preparing dose reconstructions at particular sites or categories of sites. A procedure provides specific 

requirements and guidance regarding EEOICPA project-level activities, including preparation of dose 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

11 of 48 

reconstructions at particular sites or categories of sites. NIOSH reviewed the following TIBs as part 

of its evaluation: 

• TIB: Default Assumptions and Methods for Atomic Weapons Employer Dose Reconstructions, 

Battelle-TIB-5000; Rev. 00; April 2, 2007; SRDB Ref ID: 32016

• TIB: Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-ray Procedures, ORAUTOTIB-0006; Rev. 03 PC-1; December 21, 2005; SRDB Ref ID: 20220 

4.3 Facility Employees and Experts 

To obtain additional information, NIOSH contacted five individuals, which resulted in one interview 

with a former Westinghouse employee. 

• Personal Communication, 2007, Personal Communication with Name Redacted; Telephone 

Interview by ORAU Team; November 27, 2007; SRDB Ref ID: Currently undergoing DOE 

review 

• Interview, 2004, Interview with Name Redacted; Interview conducted for the Archives of the 

California Institute of Technology; May 24, 2004; SRDB Ref ID: 55629

4.4 Previous Dose Reconstructions 

NIOSH reviewed its NIOSH OCAS Claims Tracking System (NOCTS) to locate EEOICPA-related 

dose reconstructions that might provide information relevant to the petition evaluation. Table 4-1 

summarizes the results of this review. (NOCTS data available as of January 21, 2009) 

Table 4-1: No. of WAPDP Claims Submitted Under the Dose Reconstruction Rule 

Description Totals 

Total number of claims submitted for dose reconstruction 17 

Total number of claims submitted for energy employees who meet the definition criteria for the 

NIOSH-evaluated class (August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1944). 141

Number of dose reconstructions completed for energy employees who meet the definition criteria for 

the class under evaluation (i.e., the number of such claims completed by NIOSH and submitted to the 

Department of Labor for final approval). 1 

Number of claims for which internal dosimetry records were obtained for the identified years in the 

evaluated class definition 12

Number of claims for which external dosimetry records were obtained for the identified years in the 

evaluated class definition 12

Notes: 

1 Three of the claims did not include employment within the NIOSH-evaluated timeframe. 2

 The data are not within the covered time period. 

NIOSH reviewed each claim to determine whether internal and/or external personal monitoring 

records could be obtained for the employee. 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

12 of 48 

4.5 NIOSH Data Capture Efforts and Site Research Database 

Attachment 1 contains a summary of WAPDP documents obtained during the NIOSH data 

reconnaissance and data capture efforts. The summary specifically identifies data capture details and 

general descriptions of the documents retrieved. 

NIOSH also examined its Site Research Database (SRDB) to locate documents supporting the 

evaluation of the proposed class. One hundred and thirty-nine documents in this database were 

identified as pertaining to WAPDP. These documents were evaluated for their relevance to this 

petition. The documents include historical background on site operations before, during, and after the 

covered period of operations. To date, NIOSH has not discovered any personnel or area monitoring 

data or radiological source term information specific to any radiological operations performed during 

the period being evaluated in this report. 

4.6 Documentation and/or Affidavits Provided by Petitioners 

In qualifying and evaluating the petition, NIOSH reviewed the following documents submitted by the 

petitioners: 

• Petition Form B [Survivor] with Supporting Documents; August 1, 2007; OSA Ref ID: 103556 

and 103817

5.0 Radiological Operations Relevant to the Class Evaluated by 

NIOSH 

The following subsections summarize both radiological operations at WAPDP from August 13, 1942 

through December 31, 1944 and the information available to NIOSH to characterize particular 

processes and radioactive source materials. From available sources NIOSH has gathered process and 

source descriptions, information regarding the identity of the radionuclide of concern, and information 

generally describing processes through which radiation exposures may have occurred and the physical 

environment in which they may have occurred. The information included within this evaluation 

report is intended only to be a summary of the available information. 

5.1 Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant and Process Descriptions 

The WAPDP site, located in East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (also includes the Forest Hills, 

Pennsylvania location), is designated by the DOE Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) as an 

Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) site (Worthington, 2008). The radiological activities related to 

weapons development work that occurred during the period from 1942 through 1944, are covered 

under the EEOICPA. The WAPDP site is located within the original Westinghouse Electric 

Company/Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company facility location in East Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania (called the Turtle Creek site when the site was originally constructed). The 

Westinghouse Research Laboratories, located in East Pittsburgh-Forest Hills, is also considered to be 

part of the WAPDP location (Macosko, 2000).
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

13 of 48 

Figure 5-1 shows a top view of the East Pittsburgh Westinghouse Electric Plant floor plan. Figure 5-2 

shows a map of the Westinghouse Electric Research Laboratories. 

Figure 5-1: Top View of Westinghouse Electric Plant Floor Plan 

Source: This map is a recreated version of the map found in reference: Westinghouse, 1936 & 1946. 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

14 of 48 

Figure 5-2: Map of Westinghouse Electric Research Laboratories 

Source: This map is a modified version of the map found in reference: Westinghouse, unknown date-b.

The DOE HSS indicates that WAPDP prepared uranium metal for Enrico Fermi's Stagg Field 

experiment at the University of Chicago, performed development activities, and performed pilot-scale 

production of uranium oxide fuel elements. WAPDP was also involved in research and development 

(R&D) work associated with uranium enrichment (Smyth, 1945). Based on NIOSH’s research, the 

Westinghouse work associated with the ionic centrifuge was the only radiological work performed at 

the Westinghouse, East Pittsburgh facility during the covered period evaluated in this report. Table 5-

1 provides a timeline of information for the applicable Westinghouse divisions and locations 

(including East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Bloomfield, New Jersey; and Cheswick, Pennsylvania). 

The information provided extends beyond the covered period to permit adequate characterization of 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

15 of 48 

the locations of the applicable operations and activities that support the NIOSH findings, as described 

in this report.

Table 5-1: Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant Timeline 

Table 5-1 and its associated notes span 4 pages. 

Year(s) Activity 

1900 Westinghouse lamp manufacturing is transferred to the New York City Westinghouse location (McNall, 

unknown date)

1904 The Research Department at Westinghouse is formally organized as a Division of the Engineering 

Department (McGahey, 1986)

1907 Ground broken for erection of a lamp plant in Bloomfield, New Jersey (McNall, unknown date)

1910 Research function moved from the Westinghouse Electric Plant to its own East Pittsburgh-Forest Hills 

location (McGahey, 1986)

1916 Westinghouse laboratories are moved to a location one mile from East Pittsburgh (Forest Hills) (McGahey, 

1986)

1917 Westinghouse lamp research begins in East Pittsburgh (McNall, unknown date)

1918 Filament research is discussed in R&D annual reports 

• Filament researchers include Dr. Ludwig Thomas, Dr. A. H. Compton, and Dr. Sill (McNall, unknown 

date)

1919 R&D annual reports indicate work with uranium and thorium and selective work with rare earth oxides is 

occurring at Westinghouse 

• Dr. Sill is testing uranium as a lamp filament (McNall, unknown date)

1920 Lamp research is still in East Pittsburgh (some lamp research processes occur with uranium and thorium) 

(McNall, unknown date)

1921-

1922 

The Westinghouse Lamp division and a new Research laboratory are moved from the East Pittsburgh 

location and added to the Bloomfield, New Jersey location, under the leadership of Dr. Rentschler 

(Westinghouse, 1942; McNall, unknown date) 

1922 May 1922—Dr. Rentschler and Dr. Marden refine uranium samples (at Bloomfield, New Jersey) from 

uranium salts (Unknown author, unknown date) 

1923-

1924 

Uranium is indentified as not suitable for filaments; although work on uranium is not completed at this 

point in time (based on Bloomfield research) (McNall, unknown date)

1927 Joseph Slepian (Westinghouse scientist at the Forest Hills Research Laboratory) patents an accelerator for 

electrons (based on induction as in a transformer) (Coltman, 1987)

1928 January 1, 1928—The Bloomfield, New Jersey Research Department is established as a separate 

department with Mr. Reges as Manager, Dr. Rentschler as Director, and Dr. Marden as Assistant Director 

(McNall, unknown date)

1931 Construction of million-volt Van de Graaff machine has begun in East Pittsburgh (Forest Hills) (McNall, 

unknown date)

1935-

1941 

Westinghouse engineer Robert P. Jackson’s interest in commercial implications of nuclear physics is 

relayed to the Bloomfield, New Jersey Lamp Division’s Director, Dr. Rentschler, and to the corporate 

Research laboratory at Forest Hill (under Lewis W. Chubb) (Coltman, 1987)

1937 Westinghouse becomes one of the first industries in the nation to establish a group/division to focus entirely 

on Nuclear Physics research 

Edward U. Condon heads support of the atom-smasher1

 research at Westinghouse (Coltman, 1987) 

1938 Dr. William E. Shoupp comes to the Westinghouse Research Laboratories and carries out a study at the 

atom smasher that demonstrates the existence of photo-fission in uranium (split by a gamma instead of a 

neutron) (Coltman, 1987)

1939 Westinghouse atom smasher is operating 

A report from Europe states that a uranium atom split into almost equal parts is coupled with a tremendous 

release of energy (Westinghouse, 1942)

1940 Donald W. Kerst (University of Illinois) produces a working device called a betatron, based on Dr. Joseph 

Slepian’s 1927 patent design (Coltman, 1987) 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

16 of 48 

Table 5-1: Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant Timeline 

Table 5-1 and its associated notes span 4 pages. 

Year(s) Activity 

Chemists at the Bloomfield Laboratories are the first to consistently prepare ductile uranium, and up to this 

point in time, the Bloomfield Laboratory is the only source of this metal (Unknown author, 1940)

1941 United States enters WWII; Westinghouse stops the atom-smasher activities and associated fundamental 

research effort (to turn much of its work to research in microwave radar): 

• Atom smasher is shut down and Dr. William Shoupp named head of the newly formed Electronics 

Department (Coltman, 1987) 

May 1941—Westinghouse engineers (at the Forest Hills location) identify that uranium contains 2.5 

million times as much energy (confined within uranium) as is contained in an equivalent amount of coal 

(Westinghouse, 1942) 

Westinghouse is the only source of pure (or purified) uranium via the Westinghouse Lamp Research 

Laboratory (in Bloomfield, New Jersey): 

• Originally produced as a source for other scientists and to experiment with lamp filaments(as previously 

discussed) 

• Daily production is in one-pound lots (McGahey, 1986) 

• Late 1941—A small-scale process (uranium production) at the Westinghouse Lamp Research 

Laboratory (in Bloomfield) under the direction of H.C. Rentschler produces uranium of sufficient 

quality satisfactory for determining certain properties of uranium, such as melting point and hardness 

(Westinghouse Engineer, 1946) 

End of 1941—The only uranium metal in existence consisted of a few grains of good material made on an 

experimental basis, and a few pounds of highly impure pyrophoric powder made by Metal Hydrides 

Company (Smyth, 1945, pp. 63-65) 

1942 Early 1942—A large team of scientists, including J. Slepian, assemble at the University of California to 

evaluate electromagnetic separation – specifically the calutron (Smyth, 1945) 

Early 1942—Dr. A. H. Compton (Director of wartime research at the University of Chicago) asks Dr. 

Rentschler for large-scale uranium production (300 pounds per day); initial order of 3 tons of “special 

material” to be used in the pile at the University of Chicago (McNall, unknown date), resulting in the 

following: 

• Westinghouse’s Lamp Division laboratories in Bloomfield, New Jersey are diverted into the production 

of the only pure uranium available in the U.S. (Unknown author, unknown date; Unknown author, 

1958) 

• Westinghouse Lamp Division laboratories produced high-purity uranium metal for the first atomic pile 

at the University of Chicago (Stagg Field) (McGahey, 1986; Unknown author, 1966) 

• Uranium is used in the photo-fission experiment at the Lamp Division in Bloomfield, New Jersey (using 

Rentschler’s method of reducing uranium salts to metal, developed when uranium was being 

investigated as a lamp filament) (Coltman, 1987) 

• The Westinghouse process to produce uranium metal involves the electrolysis of KUF4, which in turn is 

produced photochemically under the action of sunlight; it is found that uranium tetrafluoride could be 

used instead of KUF4 – steps are taken to have Harshaw Chemical Company (in Cleveland, Ohio) and 

DuPont (in Penns Grove, New Jersey) produce this salt; the Harshaw/DuPont production starts in 

August and by October was up to 700 pounds per day (in both cases the method of manufacture was the 

hydrofluorination of Mallinckrodt-purified dioxide); this material was also provided to Westinghouse 

for production of uranium metal (Smyth, 1945, pp. 63-65) 

Summer 1942—Group is organized at Chicago under Oppenheimer (from the University of California) to 

address theoretical problems associated with neutron reactions; three goals of the University of Chicago 

pile: obtain a chain reaction, produce plutonium, and obtain data on a fast neutron reaction (Smyth, 1945, 

pp. 63-65) 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

17 of 48 

Table 5-1: Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant Timeline 

Table 5-1 and its associated notes span 4 pages. 

Year(s) Activity 

Summer 1942—Some work on the ionic centrifuge (modified magnetron) continues at the University of 

California (original evaluation of this method occurred starting in December 1941) and is continued by J. 

Slepian (at the Westinghouse Laboratories in Pittsburgh) on a small scale through the winter of 1944-1945 

(Smyth, 1945) 

• Use of an unmodified magnetron to separate uranium isotopes is also evaluated, but is not successful 

and the evaluation is terminated (only lithium, no uranium, was used in the evaluation of this method) 

• The ionic centrifuge uranium isotope separation method is evaluated with uranium samples with no 

clear-cut results (Smyth, 1945) 

September 1942—The gaseous diffusion and centrifuge (mechanical) methods of uranium isotope 

separation are also under intensive study (Smyth, 1945) 

September 13-14, 1942—An Electromagnetic Separation plant (calutron) is authorized to be built in Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee (Smyth, 1945) 

November 1942—The Chicago pile was completed, incorporating approximately 6 tons of uranium (oxide 

and metal) (Smyth, 1945, pp. 63-65) 

November 5, 1942—General Groves authorizes the construction of a full-scale Electromagnetic Production 

plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (Smyth, 1945) 

December 2, 1942—First self-sustaining chain reaction (reactor) is achieved at the University of Chicago 

(Smyth, 1945, pp. 63-65) 

End of 1942—Westinghouse is producing 500 pounds of uranium daily and has provided most (all but a 

few hundred pounds) of the University of Chicago pile uranium (McGahey, 1986)

1942-

1943 

E. U. Condon and several people from Forest Hills (including some people involved with the atom-smasher 

effort) are sent to join uranium separation evaluation activities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (Coltman, 1987) – 

evidence of the Westinghouse evaluation of the calutron operations in Oak Ridge, Tennessee

1943 Development work on magnetrons includes secondary emission cathodes (McNall, unknown date) – 

evidence of the ionic centrifuge work at Westinghouse-East Pittsburgh 

Early 1943 – The ionic centrifuge method of uranium isotope separation has virtually been eliminated from 

the U.S. Uranium Enrichment Development program (Smyth, 1945) 

Middle of 1943—F.H. Spedding from the Iowa State College (he set up production facilities at Ames, Iowa 

in fall 1942 and produced 1 ton of uranium by November 1942) is using the adopted Final Production 

method (Smyth, 1945, pp. 63-65) 

Fall 1943—The United States government’s own facilities are able to completely take over the production 

of uranium from Westinghouse (Westinghouse Engineer, 1946) 

October 1943—Westinghouse’s uranium production project is discontinued (Marden, unknown date) 

1944 Westinghouse is providing support for the calutron in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (Klein, 1944) 

The ionic centrifuge method of uranium isotopic separation is deemed an unsatisfactory method of 

separation and is abandoned (Smyth, 1945; Slepian, 1955a; Slepian, 1955b) 

The U.S. Government evaluates information regarding the World War II-era (and modern-era) uranium 

enrichment methods (FAMS, 2008) 

1946 Westinghouse (and other companies) coordinate with the MED for the disposal of centrifuge equipment 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

18 of 48 

Table 5-1: Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant Timeline 

Table 5-1 and its associated notes span 4 pages. 

Year(s) Activity 

(Armstrong, 1946a, Armstrong, 1946b, Fidler, 1946; Sturges, 1946) 

1947 Atom-smasher activities are restarted (used as a compressed air tank for experiments in jet engine 

development during World War II) and the atom smasher returns to service as a particle accelerator 

(Coltman, 1987)

1948 October 6, 1948—Gwilym A. Price (chairman and president of Westinghouse) announces the formation of 

Westinghouse’s Atomic Power Division (related to the Bettis facility), which is to concentrate solely on 

harnessing nuclear energy for the production of useful power (Unknown author, 1958) 

1949 Westinghouse contracts with the U.S. Navy (Hyman G. Rickover) to provide naval and commercial reactor 

development (Technical leader is W.E. Shoupp) (Coltman, 1987) 

Westinghouse purchases an old airport (Bettis Field) and creates a Division (later known as Bettis 

Laboratory) of the AEC 

• The first goal of the Bettis Laboratory is to design a power plant for nuclear submarines (Coltman, 

1987)

1953 Westinghouse plans the construction of the Cheswick plant to support the manufacture of nuclear 

components (Unknown author, 1958)

1955 August—Westinghouse forms its Commercial Atomic Power Group/Division with Dr. Shoupp serving as 

the Technical Director (Coltman, 1987) 

Churchill Borough, an ultra-modern laboratory facility (to supplement and/or replace the Forest Hills 

Laboratories), is scheduled to open (Fry, 1954) 

Lamp and electric tube research is carried out at the Bloomfield, New Jersey laboratories (Fry, 1954) 

Westinghouse moved from the Forest Hills location to the Churchill Borough Laboratory (Westinghouse, 

2008)

1957 December—Bettis Laboratory supplies the first reactor for the commercial power plant at Shippingport, 

Pennsylvania (Coltman, 1987) 

19582 The atom smasher is replaced in function by a commercially-made unit of more modern design 

Notes: 

1

 The Westinghouse “atom smasher” is a belt-type electrostatic generator, which differs from a cyclotron. The belt-type 

was considered a superior machine for more exact work for critical measurements. Similar generators were subsequently 

built at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (built by R.J. Van de Graaff) and Carnegie Institute of Washington, as well 

as Westinghouse) (Westinghouse, 1942). The Westinghouse machine was the first atom smasher in the industry—5 

million-volt, 60-foot high unit at the Westinghouse Research Laboratories (McGahey, 1986). 2 Additional information regarding post-1958 years can be found in SRDB Ref ID: 6953. This file contains various 

documents regarding post-MED support contracts and information, as well as reactor/fuel R&D, as performed by 

Westinghouse. 

The following subsections discuss three particular processes that are potentially SEC-related, as well 

as their applicability to WAPDP and the NIOSH-proposed class under evaluation in this report. 

5.1.1 Preparation of Uranium for the Stagg Field Experiment 

Westinghouse’s support of the Stagg Field experiment was a result of Westinghouse’s prior 

experience in the field of uranium refining (originally associated with Westinghouse’s Lamp Division 

research regarding the use of uranium as a lamp filament). Based on NIOSH’s research, the following 

information supports NIOSH’s conclusion that MED-related uranium refining work was not 

performed at the Westinghouse, East Pittsburgh location: 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

19 of 48 

• The uranium (and thorium) research that occurred at the East Pittsburgh location was associated 

with the Lamp Division (evaluation of materials for use as potential lamp filaments), which was 

moved from East Pittsburgh and was consolidated in the Bloomfield, New Jersey location 

sometime between 1920 and 1921 (McNall, unknown date; Westinghouse, 1942), thus explaining 

the presence of low-level radiological contamination (from uranium or thorium contaminants) at 

both locations, identified during FUSRAP surveys (Voigt, 1985). Based on this information, the 

MED-related uranium refining activities are limited to the Bloomfield, New Jersey location. 

• The Westinghouse, East Pittsburgh FUSRAP survey indicates that Building “L”, Lab 2L, was the 

designated location for uranium work (DOE, unknown date). NIOSH has not found any 

documentation indicating that the East Pittsburgh/Forest Hills facility performed any MED-related 

uranium refining activities associated with the delivery of uranium for the University of Chicago 

(Stagg Field) pile. Based on the available information, it appears that Building “L” at the East 

Pittsburgh facility was identified as a Research building, as indicated on 1936 and 1946 maps 

(Westinghouse, 1936 & 1946). Based on the historical documentation, this facility may have been 

the location of the original uranium filament testing before the transfer of that activity to 

Bloomfield, New Jersey between 1921 and 1922. However, NIOSH has found no indication that 

any of the Westinghouse contract work potentially involving uranium refining for the University of 

Chicago pile was performed at the East Pittsburgh (Forest Hills) location (Westinghouse, unknown 

date-a; Westinghouse, various dates). 

• Some early research was performed using the atom smasher (R&D Facility–late 1930s up to 1941), 

but this research occurred before the initiation of the MED on August 13, 1942 (Westinghouse, 

1942; Coltman, 1987). Supporting documentation indicates that the Forest Hills R&D Facility 

work (including operation of the atom smasher) was shifted to microwave radar testing during the 

World War II timeframe (Coltman, 1987). 

• The leader of the Uranium laboratory, Dr. Rentschler, worked out of Bloomfield, New Jersey at the 

Lamp Research Facility, not at the East Pittsburgh (Forest Hills) location (McNall, unknown date; 

Unknown author, unknown date; Westinghouse, 1942; Westinghouse Engineer, 1946; Unknown 

author, 1958), further supporting NIOSH’s conclusion that the work was performed at the 

Westinghouse-Bloomfield location and not at the East Pittsburgh location. 

Based on this information, NIOSH has concluded that there is no link between the Westinghouse East 

Pittsburgh/Forest Hills facilities and any MED activities related to the refining/preparation of uranium 

for the University of Chicago-Stagg Field, Enrico Fermi uranium pile experiment. Further review of 

any activities related to this uranium process will not be performed as part of this SEC evaluation for 

the NIOSH-evaluated class defined in petition SEC-00096. 

5.1.2 Development and Pilot-Scale Production of Uranium Oxide Fuel Elements 

WAPDP work associated with uranium oxide fuel elements can be related to the reactor support 

activities performed by multiple Westinghouse facilities. Based on NIOSH’s research, Westinghouse 

uranium fuel work included the early work at Bloomfield, New Jersey (discussed previously) and the 

naval and commercial reactor development activities performed by the Westinghouse Nuclear Fuels 

Divisions. The following information supports NIOSH’s conclusion that the nuclear fuel research 

work and the pilot-scale production of fuel elements are not activities that are applicable to the 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

20 of 48 

covered facility/period at WAPDP. Specifically, all uranium oxide fuel element work performed 

within the WAPDP covered time period was performed at Westinghouse locations other than the East 

Pittsburgh location. The work that was performed after the DOE HSS-defined covered period for the 

WAPDP site includes work at various Westinghouse locations; the non-covered work appears to be 

primarily related to Westinghouse commercial fuel work. 

• 1945 correspondence indicates that the manipulation of the uranium metal (potential rod work—

related to providing the different shapes and sizes of material for the University of Chicago pile) 

was performed by Dr. Marden at Bloomfield (Calvert, 1945). 

• 1947 correspondence shows that the Westinghouse Research Laboratories-East Pittsburgh 

requested approval for research quantities of uranium to be used in Westinghouse research studies. 

The correspondence specifically mentions the Westinghouse Research Laboratories in East 

Pittsburgh, but with no apparent link to weapons work (it appears this research work is related to 

Navy reactor work) (Shoupp, 1947). 

• Uranium rod work was initiated in 1948 to support commercial and U.S. Navy nuclear reactor 

research (Unknown author, 1958). 

• 1957 correspondence regarding the fission distribution in the WAPDP uranium oxide fuel pellets 

specifically mentions WAPDP and fuel work, but includes no apparent link to weapons work; the 

timeframe associated with the uranium oxide fuel pellets work is outside of the WAPDP covered 

period (Fry, 1957) 

• The Forest Hills R&D facility supported pilot-scale activities in 1959, with the facility being 

identified as WAPDP (AEC, 1959), but the timeframe is for a period outside of the WAPDP 

covered period. 

Based on this information, NIOSH has concluded that there is no link between the Westinghouse East 

Pittsburgh/Forest Hills facilities and any MED/AEC-related uranium oxide fuel element work during 

the covered time period from 1942 through 1944. Further review of any activities related to this 

development and pilot-scale production of uranium oxide fuel elements will not be performed as part 

of this SEC evaluation for the NIOSH-evaluated class defined in petition SEC-00096.

5.1.3 Development Work Associated with Uranium Enrichment 

Westinghouse work associated with research and development of the uranium enrichment processes 

was related to its support of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD)/MED 

research into uranium enrichment. From the beginning of the MED, the OSRD sponsored all research 

on the topic of uranium enrichment; many potential methods were evaluated. The early uranium 

enrichment research occurred at multiple locations across the MED complex, including (but not 

limited to) Princeton, Columbia University, the University of Virginia, the University of California, 

and the Standard Oil Development Company. Westinghouse was at least partially involved in the 

evaluation and development of equipment/methods to support four of the methods under evaluation by 

the MED during this era: (1) the centrifuge (mechanical) method (developed and evaluated by the 

Standard Oil Development Company in New Jersey), (2) electromagnetic-calutron (in Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee), (3) gaseous diffusion (in Oak Ridge, Tennessee), and (4) ionic centrifuge method based 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

21 of 48 

on a modified version of a laboratory-scale magnetron (at the University of California-Berkeley and 

the Westinghouse Research Facility in East Pittsburgh). The following subsections outline 

Westinghouse’s involvement in each of the identified OSRD/MED operations. 

5.1.3.1 Centrifuge (mechanical)

NIOSH has found documentation indicating that Westinghouse supported MED operations performed 

by the Standard Oil Development Company as part of its evaluation of the centrifuge (mechanical) 

method of uranium separation/enrichment. The activities associated with the development of the 

centrifuge were associated with a 1940 Navy contract. The centrifuges were the result of a 

coordinated effort by Columbia University, the University of Virginia, the Standard Oil Development 

Company, and Westinghouse (Sturges, 1946; Woodbury, 1948, Chapter 22). 

The mechanical centrifuge uranium enrichment method incorporated the “cream separator principle” 

of isotope separation/enrichment (Woodbury, 1948). The first gram quantities of enriched uranium 

were produced at the University of Virginia using the mechanical centrifuge method (DOE, 1997). 

Pilot plants were built by Standard Oil Development Company (in Baway, New Jersey) and 

Westinghouse (in Bayonne, New Jersey). Engineering difficulties led the MED to shelve this project, 

with the focus shifting to gaseous and electromagnetic separation (Sturges, 1946; Woodbury, 1948; 

DOE, 1997). The OSRD/MED provided direction to Westinghouse, the Standard Oil Development 

Company, and Princeton University regarding the disposition/disposal of the equipment and project 

documentation associated with each respective enrichment method that was evaluated (and eventually 

terminated). Specifically, the sites were allowed to dispose of the uncontrolled/unclassified portions 

of their information and equipment, and were directed to maintain the potentially classified/controlled 

equipment pieces for the OSRD, pending further disposition directions (Fidler, 1946; Sturges, 1946; 

Armstrong, 1946a; Armstrong 1946b; Westinghouse, 1946). NIOSH has concluded that there is no 

indication that Westinghouse performed any of this uranium work at the East Pittsburgh/Forest Hills 

research and development facility. Therefore, although Westinghouse may have developed and 

designed equipment to support uranium enrichment by centrifuge, NIOSH has concluded that none of 

this work with radioactive materials (uranium) occurred at the Westinghouse East Pittsburgh/Forest 

Hills facilities during the covered time period from 1942 through 1944. Further review of any 

activities related to these operations will not be performed as part of this SEC evaluation for the 

NIOSH-evaluated class defined in petition SEC-00096. 

5.1.3.2 Oak Ridge Electromagnetic (Calutron) and Gaseous Diffusion Support

NIOSH has found documentation indicating that Westinghouse supported MED gaseous diffusion and 

calutron work in Oak Ridge, Tennessee during the covered time period evaluated in this report 

(Westinghouse, 1950). The cyclotron/magnetron construction (i.e., huge magnets) was performed at 

the Westinghouse Switchgear Division in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in support of University of 

California research; the equipment was installed in Oak Ridge (Sturges, 1946; Woodbury, 1948, 

Chapter 22). There is no indication that Westinghouse performed any calutron uranium enrichment 

work at the East Pittsburgh/Forest Hills Research and Development facility. NIOSH has concluded 

that, although Westinghouse may have developed and designed equipment to support uranium 

enrichment by gaseous diffusion or by calutron, none of this work with radioactive materials 

(uranium) occurred at the Westinghouse East Pittsburgh/Forest Hills facilities during the covered time 

period from 1942 through 1944. Further review of any activities related to these operations will not 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

22 of 48 

be performed as part of this SEC evaluation for the NIOSH-evaluated class defined in petition SEC00096. 

5.1.3.3 Ionic Centrifuge (modified magnetron)

NIOSH has found documentation indicating that Westinghouse coordinated with the University of 

California-Berkeley in the evaluation, research, and development of the uranium enrichment process 

using a laboratory-scale magnetron and a modified version of a laboratory-scale magnetron (referred 

to as “ionic centrifuge”). A portion of this uranium work was performed at the East Pittsburgh/Forest 

Hills Research and Development facility (Smyth, 1945, pp. 119-120). Available documentation 

discusses the involvement of Westinghouse’s Dr. Joseph Slepian in the review and development of the 

ionic centrifuge uranium enrichment method (Fowler, 2008; Bush-Conant File pp. 26-30; Slepian, 

1955a; Slepain, 1955b). Based on this information, NIOSH has concluded that Westinghouse-East 

Pittsburgh/Forest Hills was involved in the design and development of the ionic centrifuge uranium 

enrichment method during the covered period of 1942 through 1944 at WAPDP. This work involved 

laboratory-scale quantities of uranium (Woodbury, 1948, Chapter 23). 

As presented in Table 5-1, the ionic centrifuge method of uranium isotope separation had virtually 

been eliminated from the U.S. Uranium Enrichment Development program by early 1943 (Smyth, 

1945). However, J. Slepian (at the Westinghouse Laboratories in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) continued 

this operation on a small scale through the winter of 1944 (Smyth, 1945). Considering the scale and 

scope of the work, as well as the fact that the process failed as a potential enrichment process (Slepian, 

1955a; Slepian, 1955b) and was terminated, the end date of covered radiological activities is 

considered to be December 31, 1944. 

Based on its research, NIOSH has concluded that the ionic centrifuge work is the only weaponsrelated operation that was performed at the Westinghouse-East Pittsburgh site. Specifically, the ionic 

centrifuge work involved enrichment research with uranium to support the OSRD/MED efforts, and 

was performed during the 1942 through 1944 timeframe listed within the covered period for the 

Westinghouse Atomic Power Development site. Therefore, only the review of the ionic centrifuge 

work will be included in this SEC evaluation for the NIOSH-evaluated class defined in petition SEC00096. 

5.2 Radiological Exposure Sources from WAPDP Operations 

The following subsections provide an overview of the internal and external exposure sources for the 

WAPDP class under evaluation. Based on its research, NIOSH has not discovered any other 

radiological operations at the WAPDP site, other than the ionic centrifuge work, that may have 

resulted in MED/AEC-related internal or external radiological exposures during the covered time 

period under evaluation. Therefore, the potential internal and external radiological exposure scenarios 

at WAPDP are limited to those OSRD/MED operations, as discussed in Section 5.1, associated with 

the performance of laboratory-scale research and the development of the ionic centrifuge method of 

uranium enrichment during the period evaluated in the report. 

The centrifuge-related work originated from the University of California-Berkeley laboratories where 

uranium enrichment using magnetrons (as well as other methods) was being evaluated. A 

Westinghouse researcher, Dr. Joseph Slepian (known for his electrical equipment work) identified a 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

23 of 48 

potential method of uranium enrichment using a modified magnetron, which he deemed “ionic 

centrifuge.” Dr. Slepian carried out his research with this method into 1944 at the East Pittsburgh 

Research laboratories. This work involved research with a laboratory-scale magnetron and very small 

quantities of uranium (Woodbury, 1948, Chapter 23). As previously indicated, this work did not 

reveal consistent results; it was virtually eliminated from the U.S. Uranium Enrichment Development 

program by early 1943, and was completely abandoned in late 1944 (Smyth, 1945; Slepian, 1955a; 

Slepian, 1955b). Specific discussions regarding the potential internal and external hazards associated 

with this work are included in the sections that follow. 

5.2.1 Internal Radiological Exposure Sources 

As previously indicated, the ionic centrifuge work involved research with a modified version of a 

laboratory-scale magnetron and very small quantities of uranium (Woodbury, 1948, Chapter 23). This 

work did not reveal consistent results and was eventually abandoned as a viable uranium enrichment 

method in 1944 (Smyth, 1945; Slepian, 1955a; Slepian, 1955b). As this was limited-scope work with 

small amounts of uranium, there was a low probability of producing elevated air concentrations of 

uranium. The primary internal exposure pathway during these research activities could have occurred 

by means of inhalation and/or ingestion of radioactive materials (uranium compounds). 

5.2.1.1 Uranium

The OSRD/MED work associated with the electromagnetic enrichment/separation of uranium used 

uranium in the form of uranium tetrachloride (UCl4) (FAMS, 2008). The UCl4 was heated and 

converted into a gas prior to electromagnetic separation. The inhalation of uranium from this work 

likely posed an internal radiological exposure hazard. The low-level enriched material resulting from 

the early enrichment processes that were under development were likely used as feed for further highlevel enrichment in Oak Ridge. The enrichment levels achieved from the low-level enrichment phases 

were likely between 12-20% (Smyth, 1945; FAMS, 2008). Specific information is not clearly 

documented regarding the highest enrichment level that was attained using this method; therefore, it is 

possible that higher levels of enrichment were achieved using the ionic centrifuge method. 

Because processed uranium was used in the evaluation of this enrichment method, exposures due to 

uranium byproducts, resulting from the uranium refining process, are not likely and therefore are not 

included in this internal review. 

5.2.2 External Radiological Exposure Sources 

Based on its research, NIOSH has determined that WAPDP work involved personnel exposures to 

small quantities of uranium. Although the amounts of radioactive material (uranium) present at any 

one time during the laboratory-scale research of uranium enrichment method were very small, the 

potential for photon, beta (from uranium progeny), and neutron exposures did exist. 

5.2.2.1 Beta-Photon

Natural uranium emits both beta particles (electrons) and photons (X-ray and gamma photons). The 

two primordial components of natural uranium are uranium-238 and uranium-235, but some of their 

decay products grow into equilibrium quickly enough to be hazardous in processing metal. Uranium-
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

24 of 48 

238 transitions by alpha decay to thorium-234, emitting traces of weakly penetrating ~ 13 keV L Xrays. However, thorium-234 transitions primarily to protactinium-234m (with a 1.17 minute halflife), which in turn transitions to uranium-234 with the emission of a 2.28-MeV beta particle in 98.6% 

of transitions. This relatively high-energy beta particle accounts for significant external beta dose 

rates. It also produces significant Bremsstrahlung X-rays, primarily in the 30-250 keV energy range. 

The photons emitted from protactinium-234m are responsible for the external doses from uranium 

progeny. Because protactinium-234m is a decay product of thorium-234, the dose rate due to 

protactinium-234m will decay with an effective half-life of 24.1 days. Based on the limited quantities 

of uranium present at WAPDP during the period evaluated in this report, NIOSH does not expect that 

there would be significant external beta-gamma exposures at the site. Potential external beta-gamma 

exposures are evaluated further in Section 7 of this report. 

An external photon source that also potentially existed at WAPDP included X-ray exposures from 

medical X-rays performed as a condition of employment. Information associated with medical X-rays 

and X-ray units used during the time period evaluated in this report are addressed in Battelle-TBD6001 and ORAUT-OTIB-0006. 

5.2.2.2 Neutron

There were two potential sources of neutrons for the work being evaluated at WAPDP. First, neutrons 

arise from alpha-neutron reactions where the reactant is chlorine, which was used in the 

electromagnetic uranium enrichment processes. Second, there is a small amount of spontaneous 

fission that occurs in uranium. The production of neutrons by alpha-neutron interactions in uranium 

compounds varies according to the light element involved in the interaction. Based on the limited 

quantities of uranium present at WAPDP during the period evaluated in this report, NIOSH believes 

that there would not be significant external neutron exposures at the site. However, without additional 

source term and process information, NIOSH cannot definitively establish the potential levels of 

neutron exposure in this class. 

5.2.3 Incidents 

No documented discrete radiological incidents or accidents that resulted in exceptionally high-level 

personnel exposures or overexposures (such as a criticality event) at WAPDP were identified or 

discovered by NIOSH during the data research and investigations performed in support of this SEC 

evaluation. NIOSH is not aware of any recorded histories of fires, spills, or other releases at WAPDP. 

6.0 Summary of Available Monitoring Data for the Class Evaluated 

by NIOSH 

As of the date of this evaluation, NIOSH has been unable to find any records of internal or external 

monitoring for WAPDP employees; this includes its search for bioassay, air monitoring, dosimetry, 

and area radiation monitoring data. Because there was a very limited amount of OSRD/MED uranium 

available during the time period evaluated in this report, and because uranium was highly controlled 

and sought after by the OSRD/MED, NIOSH believes that only limited quantities of source material 

were present at the WAPDP site. NIOSH’s evaluation of its ability to reconstruct the dose for the 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

25 of 48 

NIOSH-evaluated class, using available information/documentation and dose reconstruction means 

available, is discussed in Section 7 of this report. 

7.0 Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction for the Class Evaluated by 

NIOSH 

The feasibility determination for the class of employees under evaluation in this report is governed by 

both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1). Under that Act and rule, NIOSH must establish whether 

or not it has access to sufficient information either to estimate the maximum radiation dose for every 

type of cancer for which radiation doses are reconstructed that could have been incurred under 

plausible circumstances by any member of the class, or to estimate the radiation doses to members of 

the class more precisely than a maximum dose estimate. If NIOSH has access to sufficient 

information for either case, NIOSH would then determine that it would be feasible to conduct dose 

reconstructions. 

In determining feasibility, NIOSH begins by evaluating whether current or completed NIOSH dose 

reconstructions demonstrate the feasibility of estimating with sufficient accuracy the potential 

radiation exposures of the class. If the conclusion is one of infeasibility, NIOSH systematically 

evaluates the sufficiency of different types of monitoring data, process and source or source term data, 

which together or individually might ensure that NIOSH can estimate either the maximum doses that 

members of the class might have incurred, or more precise quantities that reflect the variability of 

exposures experienced by groups or individual members of the class as summarized in Section 7.6. 

This approach is discussed in OCAS’s SEC Petition Evaluation Internal Procedures which are 

available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 

The next four major subsections of this Evaluation Report examine: 

• The sufficiency and reliability of the available data. (Section 7.1) 

• The feasibility of reconstructing internal radiation doses. (Section 7.2) 

• The feasibility of reconstructing external radiation doses. (Section 7.3) 

• The bases for petition SEC-00096 as submitted by the petitioner. (Section 7.4) 

7.1 Pedigree of Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant Data 

This subsection answers questions that need to be asked before performing a feasibility evaluation. 

Data Pedigree addresses the background, history, and origin of the data. It requires looking at site 

methodologies that may have changed over time; primary versus secondary data sources and whether 

they match; and whether data are internally consistent. All these issues form the bedrock of the 

researcher’s confidence and later conclusions about the data’s quality, credibility, reliability, 

representativeness, and sufficiency for determining the feasibility of dose reconstruction. The 

feasibility evaluation presupposes that data pedigree issues have been settled. 

As previously discussed, NIOSH has been unable to find records of internal or external monitoring for 

WAPDP employees. In addition, very limited information regarding source term information is 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

26 of 48 

available for the ionic centrifuge work performed at WAPDP. Therefore, a data sufficiency and 

pedigree evaluation for WAPDP workers is not possible for these data types.

7.2 Evaluation of Bounding Internal Radiation Doses at WAPDP 

As discussed in Section 5 of this report, the principal source of internal radiation doses for members 

of the class under evaluation was uranium compounds used in the evaluation of the ionic centrifuge 

method of uranium enrichment. The following subsections address the ability to bound internal doses, 

methods for bounding doses, and the feasibility of internal dose reconstruction. 

7.2.1 Evaluation of Bounding Process-Related Internal Doses 

The following subsections summarize the extent and limitations of information available for 

reconstructing the process-related internal doses of members of the class under evaluation. 

7.2.1.1 Alternative Internal Data Source-Uranium Compounds 

Based on the type of work performed, as identified during NIOSH’s research for this evaluation 

report, the ionic centrifuge enrichment method is an electromagnetic method of isotope separation 

closely resembling the calutron electromagnetic operation. From the perspective of uranium 

enrichment, the electromagnetic process uses UCl4 in isotope separation and subsequent uranium-235 

enrichment. NIOSH reviewed the ionic centrifuge process in comparison to the calutron uranium 

enrichment process. The electromagnetic separation processes evaluated and performed at WAPDP 

were very small in scale, as compared to the processes developed and used at Y-12 and the University 

of California. Therefore, from the perspective of internal uranium dose for Westinghouse Atomic 

Power Development employees involved in the ionic centrifuge research work, the internal dose 

reconstruction methods for Y-12 and/or the University of California calutron workers represent a 

potentially bounding internal exposure scenario. 

However, for the period under evaluation in this report, Y-12 and University of California internal 

dose reconstruction processes are not available to support estimating or bounding the internal dose for 

the WAPDP’s NIOSH-evaluated class. The Y-12 calutron work for the 1942-1944 timeframe has 

been evaluated under the SEC process (SEC-00018 petition evaluation), and a class that encompasses 

the Y-12 calutron workers has been included in the Special Exposure Cohort. The findings of the 

SEC-00018 Evaluation Report indicate that internal dose for calutron workers cannot be reconstructed 

with sufficient accuracy. Specifically, the findings from an internal exposure perspective in the SEC00018 report were: (1) Y-12 employees involved in calutron operations were exposed to airborne 

levels of uranium that could not be determined because of a lack of bioassay and air monitoring data; 

(2) there was a lack of source term and process information because of varying levels of uranium 

enrichment and production rates, and because the operations were not comparable to other MED/AEC 

operations for which data exist; and (3) there was a lack of sufficient information permitting 

individual internal dose reconstruction with sufficient accuracy during the covered/evaluated period 

(SEC-00018; SEC-00026; SEC-00098; ORAUT-TKBS-0014-5; ORAUT-TKBS-0014-6). The 

University of California dose reconstruction methods are defined in ORAUT-TKBS-0049, but do not 

provide definitive internal dose reconstruction methods for the electromagnetic isotope separation 

operations during the time period evaluated in this report. 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

27 of 48 

Because there are no available data for the radiological operations performed at WAPDP in East 

Pittsburgh, and because the sites/operations that could serve as a surrogate for the purpose of 

establishing a bounding internal dose reconstruction method (including the Y-12 and University of 

California calutron operations and activities) are not available or developed for the WAPDP 

operations timeframe, no method can be readily established to support bounding or reconstructing the 

internal dose at WAPDP for this evaluation. 

7.2.1.2 Residual Contamination

Since there was no evidence of residual contamination in the storage locations, internal exposure 

pathways such as inhalation, ingestion, and resuspension were not a concern for WAPDP workers. 

Therefore, assessment of internal dose due to residual contamination is not necessary. 

7.2.2 Internal Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion 

NIOSH did not find personnel monitoring data, area monitoring data, or source term data to estimate 

internal exposures at WAPDP for the period of August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1944, from 

uranium compounds used in the evaluation of the ionic centrifuge to enrich uranium at the 

Westinghouse Research Laboratories in East Pittsburgh. NIOSH has not found any information 

regarding work activities, nor are the source terms known. In addition, NIOSH evaluated the 

applicability of two potential surrogate operations from Y-12 and the University of California calutron 

operations and found that information and associated radiological data were lacking for both sites. 

Therefore, NIOSH has concluded that it is not possible to determine the magnitude of any potentially 

unmonitored internal doses at WAPDP. Based on the lack of relevant data, NIOSH is unable to 

estimate with sufficient accuracy the potential internal exposures associated with the ionic centrifuge 

operations at WAPDP for the period from August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1944. 

7.3 Evaluation of Bounding External Radiation Doses at WAPDP 

As discussed in Section 5 of this report, the principal source of external radiation doses for members 

of the proposed class was uranium compounds used in the evaluation of the ionic centrifuge method 

of uranium enrichment. The following subsections address the ability to bound external doses, 

methods for bounding doses, and the feasibility of external dose reconstruction. 

7.3.1 Evaluation of Bounding Process-Related External Doses 

The following subsections summarize the extent and limitations of information available for 

reconstructing the process-related external doses of members of the class under evaluation. 

7.3.1.1 Alternative Data Sources-External Dose

As discussed in Section 7.2.1.1, NIOSH’s research indicates that the ionic centrifuge enrichment 

method is an electromagnetic method of isotope separation closely resembling the calutron 

electromagnetic operation. As assessed in the internal review, the electromagnetic separation 

processes evaluated and performed at WAPDP were very small in scale compared to the processes 

developed and used at Y-12 and the University of California. Therefore, NIOSH concluded that the 

external dose reconstruction methods for Y-12 and/or the University of California calutron workers 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

28 of 48 

would represent a potentially bounding external exposure scenario, from the perspective of external 

dose from uranium compounds for WAPDP employees involved in the ionic centrifuge research 

work. 

However, for the period under evaluation in this report, the Y-12 and University of California external 

dose reconstruction processes are not available to support estimating or bounding the external dose for 

the WAPDP evaluated class. As discussed in Section 7.2.1.1, the Y-12 calutron work for the 1942-

1944 timeframe has been evaluated under the SEC process (SEC-00018 petition evaluation), and a 

class that encompasses the Y-12 calutron workers has been included in the Special Exposure Cohort 

(SEC-00018 ER; ORAUT-TKBS-0014-5; ORAUT-TKBS-0014-6). The findings documented in the 

SEC-00018 Evaluation Report indicate that external dose for calutron workers, other than medical Xrays performed as a condition of employment, cannot be reconstructed with sufficient accuracy. 

Specifically, the findings from an external exposure perspective in the SEC-00018 Evaluation Report 

were: (1) there was a lack of source term and process information because of varying levels of 

uranium enrichment and production rates, and because the operations were not comparable to other 

MED/AEC operations for which data exist; (2) there was a lack of sufficient information permitting 

individual external dose reconstruction with sufficient accuracy during the covered/evaluated period 

(SEC-00018; SEC-00026; SEC-00098; ORAUT-TKBS-0014-5; ORAUT-TKBS-0014-6); and (3) 

sufficient information exists to support reconstructing the dose (for the purpose of partial dose 

reconstructions) from medical X-ray for Y-12 workers. The University of California dose 

reconstruction methods are defined in ORAUT-TKBS-0049, but do not provide definitive external 

dose reconstruction methods for the electromagnetic isotope separation operations during the time 

period evaluated in this report. 

Because there are no available data for the radiological operations performed at WAPDP in East 

Pittsburgh, and because the sites/operations that could serve as a surrogate for the purpose of 

establishing a bounding external dose reconstruction method (including the Y-12 and University of 

California calutron operations and activities) are not available for the WAPDP operations timeframe, 

no method can be readily established to support bounding or reconstructing the occupational external 

dose at WAPDP for this evaluation. 

7.3.1.2 Residual Contamination

Since there was no evidence of residual contamination in the storage locations, internal exposure 

pathways such as inhalation, ingestion, and resuspension were not a concern for WAPDP workers. 

Therefore, assessment of internal dose due to residual contamination is not necessary. 

7.3.2 Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant Occupational X-Ray Examinations 

NIOSH has not found any records indicating that employees at WAPDP were required to complete 

medical examinations, including chest X-rays prior to beginning work, on a periodic basis (e.g., 

annually), or following termination. Although no records have been identified that indicate 

occupational medical X-rays were required, for the purpose of partial dose reconstructions during the 

time period evaluated in this report, X-ray exams are assumed to have been required at termination. 

Organ doses from posterior-anterior chest X-rays for all time periods are available in ORAUT-OTIB0006. NIOSH believes that by using this methodology, occupational medical X-ray doses can be 

reconstructed. 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

29 of 48 

7.3.3 External Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion 

NIOSH did not find personnel monitoring data, area monitoring data, or source term data to estimate 

external exposures at WAPDP for the period of August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1944, 

associated with the ionic centrifuge process to enrich uranium at the Westinghouse Research 

Laboratories in East Pittsburgh. NIOSH was unable to find information regarding WAPDP work 

activities or source term data. NIOSH also evaluated the applicability of two potential surrogate 

operations from Y-12 and the University of California calutron operations, and found that information 

and associated radiological data were lacking for both sites. Therefore, NIOSH has concluded that it 

is not possible to determine the magnitude of any potentially unmonitored external doses at WAPDP. 

Based on the lack of relevant data, NIOSH is unable to estimate with sufficient accuracy the potential 

external exposures associated with the ionic centrifuge operations at WAPDP for the period from 

August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1944. However, for the purposes of partial dose 

reconstructions (for workers with non-presumptive cancers or with less than 250 days of employment) 

NIOSH can reconstruct the medical X-ray exposures using ORAUT-OTIB-0006. 

7.4 Evaluation of Petition Basis for SEC-00096 

The following subsections evaluate the assertions made on behalf of petition SEC-00096 for WAPDP. 

7.4.1 Lack of Records 

SEC-00096: Inasmuch as EEOICPA BULLETIN NO. 02-02, March 29, 2002, explicitly states that 

records have not been found for employees at the Westinghouse East Pittsburgh site, document 02-02 

satisfies the requirement of Form B, Section F-2, regarding petition SEC00096. 

NIOSH concurs that radiological monitoring records for the class evaluated in this report are not 

available. This basis provided the necessary supporting documentation/statement resulting in the 

qualification of petition SEC-00096; the findings of this evaluation are the subsequent response to this 

item. 

7.5 Other Potential SEC Issues Relevant to the Petition Identified During the 

Evaluation 

During the feasibility evaluation for SEC-00096, an additional issue was identified that needed further 

analysis and resolution. 

• ISSUE: Evaluate the ability to reconstruct internal or external calutron exposures based on Y-12 or 

University of California (Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory) exposure scenarios. 

RESPONSE: As discussed in Section 7, the Y-12 and University of California (Lawrence Berkley 

National Laboratory) calutron work is a potential surrogate dose reconstruction methodology 

source for reconstructing the internal and external dose for the WAPDP ionic centrifuge workers. 

However, the methodologies are neither available nor fully defined for either Y-12 or the 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

30 of 48 

University of California (Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory) for the timeframe under 

evaluation in this report. Therefore, the ability to bound the WAPDP radiation doses (reconstruct 

with sufficient accuracy) is not possible using WAPDP data or source term information, or 

through the use of surrogate data from an equivalent site. 

7.6 Summary of Feasibility Findings for Petition SEC-00096 

This report evaluates the feasibility for completing dose reconstructions for employees at WAPDP 

from August 13, 1942, through December 31, 1944. NIOSH found that the available monitoring 

records, process descriptions and source term data available are not sufficient to complete dose 

reconstructions for the evaluated class of employees. 

Table 7-1 summarizes the results of the feasibility findings at WAPDP for each exposure source 

during the time period August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1944. 

Table 7-1: Summary of Feasibility Findings for SEC-00096 

August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1944 

Source of Exposure Reconstruction Feasible Reconstruction Not Feasible 

Internal X 

 - U X 

External X 

 - Beta-Photon X

 - Neutron X 

 - Occupational Medical X-ray X 

As of January 21, 2009, a total of 14 claims have been submitted to NIOSH for individuals who 

worked at Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Pant and are covered by the class definition 

evaluated in this report. Dose reconstructions have been completed for 1 individual (~.06%). 

8.0 Evaluation of Health Endangerment for Petition SEC-00096 

The health endangerment determination for the class of employees covered by this evaluation report is 

governed by both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3). Under these requirements, if it is not 

feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy radiation doses for members of the class, NIOSH must 

also determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the 

health of members of the class. Section 83.13 requires NIOSH to assume that any duration of 

unprotected exposure may have endangered the health of members of a class when it has been 

established that the class may have been exposed to radiation during a discrete incident likely to have 

involved levels of exposure similarly high to those occurring during nuclear criticality incidents. If 

the occurrence of such an exceptionally high-level exposure has not been established, then NIOSH is 

required to specify that health was endangered for those workers who were employed for a number of 

work days aggregating at least 250 work days within the parameters established for the class or in 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

31 of 48 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the SEC. 

Based on the lack of available data, little information on source terms and activities, and few available 

surveys, NIOSH’s evaluation determined that it is not feasible to estimate radiation dose for members 

of the NIOSH-evaluated class with sufficient accuracy based on the sum of information available from 

available resources. 

9.0 Class Conclusion for Petition SEC-00096 

Based on its full research of the class under evaluation, NIOSH has defined a single class of 

employees for which NIOSH cannot estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy. The NIOSHproposed class to be added to the SEC includes all Atomic Weapons Employer employees who 

worked at Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant in East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania from 

August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1944, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 

work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within 

the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the SEC. The class under 

evaluation was modified (see Section 3.0 below) because (1) the definition of the East Pittsburgh 

location encompassed two Westinghouse facilities; and (2) although it is apparent that there were a 

limited number of personnel directly involved in the ionic centrifuge research under evaluation, the 

Department of Labor (DOL) cannot distinguish specific workers or work locations for the NIOSHproposed class. 

NIOSH has carefully reviewed all material submitted by the petitioner, including the specific 

assertions stated in the petition, and has responded herein (see Section 7.4). NIOSH has also reviewed 

available technical resources and many other references, including the Site Research Database 

(SRDB), for information relevant to SEC-00096. In addition, NIOSH reviewed its NOCTS dose 

reconstruction database to identify EEOICPA-related dose reconstructions that might provide 

information relevant to the petition evaluation. 

These actions are based on existing, approved NIOSH processes used in dose reconstruction for 

claims under EEOICPA. NIOSH’s guiding principle in conducting these dose reconstructions is to 

ensure that the assumptions used are fair, consistent, and well-grounded in the best available science. 

Simultaneously, uncertainties in the science and data must be handled to the advantage, rather than to 

the detriment, of the petitioners. When adequate personal dose monitoring information is not 

available, or is very limited, NIOSH may use the highest reasonably possible radiation dose, based on 

reliable science, documented experience, and relevant data to determine the feasibility of 

reconstructing the dose of an SEC petition class. NIOSH contends that it has complied with these 

standards of performance in determining the feasibility or infeasibility of reconstructing dose for the 

class under evaluation. 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

32 of 48 

This page intentionally left blank 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

33 of 48 

10.0 References 

42 C.F.R. pt. 81, Guidelines for Determining the Probability of Causation Under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal 

Register/Vol. 67, No. 85/Thursday, p. 22,296; May 2, 2002; SRDB Ref ID: 19391 

42 C.F.R. pt. 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule; May 2, 2002; SRDB Ref ID: 

19392 

42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the Special 

Exposure Cohort Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 

2000; Final Rule; May 28, 2004; SRDB Ref ID: 22001 

42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385 [EEOICPA], Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000, as amended 

Battelle-TBD-6000, Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium and Thorium, 

PSWS-3738 Rev. F0; Battelle; December 13, 2006; SRDB Ref ID: 30671 

Battelle-TBD-6001, Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Refined Uranium and Thorium, 

Rev. F0; Battelle; December 13, 2006; SRDB Ref ID: 30673 

Battelle-TIB-5000, Default Assumptions and Methods for Atomic Weapons Employer Dose 

Reconstructions, Rev. 00, Battelle; April 2, 2007; SRDB Ref ID: 32016 

OCAS-PR-004, Internal Procedures for the Evaluation of Special Exposure Cohort Petitions, Rev. 0, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); September 23, 2004; SRDB Ref ID: 

32022 

ORAUT-OTIB-0006, OTIB: Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-ray 

Procedures, Rev. 03 PC-1; Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU); December 21, 2005; SRDB 

Ref ID: 20220 

ORAUT-TKBS-0014-5, Y-12 National Security Complex – Occupational Internal Dose, Rev. 01; Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU); May 10, 2005; SRDB Ref ID: 20206 

ORAUT-TKBS-0014-6, Y-12 National Security Complex – Occupational External Dose, Rev. 00 PC1; Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU); October 11, 2005; SRDB Ref ID: 20207 

ORAUT-TKBS-0049, Site Profile for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Rev. 01; Oak 

Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU); April 2, 2007; SRDB Ref ID: 31090 

AEC, 1959, Occupational Exposure to Radioactive Dust; Atomic Energy Commission; November 3, 

1959; SRDB Ref ID: 6920 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

34 of 48 

Armstrong, 1946a, Redistribution and Salvage Division, correspondence; E. O. Armstrong; March 26, 

1946; SRDB Ref ID: 21829, pdf p. 218 

Armstrong, 1946b, Disposal of O.S.R.D. Property Stored at Westinghouse, correspondence; E. O. 

Armstrong; April 12, 1946; SRDB Ref ID: 21829, pdf p. 219 

Bush-Conant File, Bush-Conant File Relating to the Development of the Atomic Bomb, 1940-1945, 

M-1392; various authors; unknown date; SRDB Ref ID: 55893 

Calvert, 1945, List of HED Contracts, Third Service Command, correspondence; H. C. Calvert; June 

4, 1945; SRDB Ref ID: 6953, pdf p. 16 

Coltman, 1987, The Westinghouse Atom Smasher--An IEEE Historical Milestone; John W. Coltman; 

February 1987; SRDB Ref ID: 39833 

DOE, unknown date, Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program-Elimination Report for 

Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant, East Pittsburgh Plant, Forest Hills, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, select pages; Department of Energy (DOE); unknown date; SRDB Ref ID: 6953, pdf 

pp. 2-7 

DOE, 1997, Linking Legacies, page 139 of Appendix B; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); January 

1997; SRDB Ref ID: 12005, pdf p.2 

FAMS, 2008, Uranium Production-Nuclear Weapons; Federation of American Scientists (FAMS); 

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/uranium.htm; last accessed November 12, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 

55619 

Fidler, 1946, Disposal of O.S.R.D. Property, correspondence; H. A. Fidler; December 29, 1946; 

SRDB Ref ID: 6953, pdf pp. 25-26 

Form B, 2007, Petition Form B [Survivor] with Supporting Documents; August 1, 2007; OSA Ref ID: 

103556 and 103817 

Fowler, 2008, Biography Memoirs of Joseph Slepian; T. Fowler; 

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=jslepian.html; last accessed October 21, 

2008; SRDB Ref ID: 55887 

Fry, 1954, Westinghouse: Atoms to Zirconium; C. N. Fry; March 1954; SRDB Ref ID: 39781 

Fry, 1957, Fission Distribution in WAPD Uranium Oxide Pellets, correspondence; W. E. Fry; August 

1, 1957; SRDB Ref ID: 47879 

Interview, 2004, Interview with Name Redacted; Interview conducted for the Archives of the 

California Institute of Technology; May 24, 2004; SRDB Ref ID: 44808 

Klein, 1944, Contracts with Westinghouse, correspondence; A. C. Klein; June 20, 1944, SRDB Ref 

ID: 6953, pdf pp. 28-30 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

35 of 48 

Macosko, 2000, Westinghouse Living Technology Campus; Kase Macosko and Jeremy Smith; 

Industrial Technology 48-562; May 3, 2000; SRDB Ref ID: 55629 

Marden, unknown date, Uranium Discussion and Photos, portion of a document; J. W. Marden; 

unknown date; SRDB Ref ID: 39850 

McGahey, 1986, Chronology of Significant Westinghouse Events; Robert V. McGahey; January 14, 

1986; SRDB Ref ID: 39776 

McNall, unknown date, Historical Notes on the Lamp Division and its Technical Activities; J. W. 

McNall; unknown date; SRDB Ref ID: 39807 

Personal Communication, 2007, Personal Communication with Name Redacted; Telephone Interview 

by ORAU Team; November 27, 2007; SRDB Ref ID: 57691 

Shoupp, 1947, Plan to Study Energy Threshold and Cross Section for Fission, correspondence; W. E. 

Shoupp; May 22, 1947; SRDB Ref ID: 6953, pdf p. 15 

Slepian, 1955a, Isotope Separation by Ionic Expansion in a Magnetic Field; J. Slepian; Vol. 41, 1955; 

SRDB Ref ID: 55618 

Slepain, 1955b, Failure of the Ionic Centrifuge Prior to the Ionic Expander; J. Slepian; June 15, 1955; 

SRDB Ref ID: 55620 

Smyth, 1945, Atomic Energy for Military Purposes (The Smyth Report): The Official Report on the 

Development of the Atomic Bomb Under the Auspices of the United States Government; Henry De 

Wolf Smyth; July 1, 1945; SRDB Ref ID: 43344 and 44082 

Sturges, 1946, Disposal of O.S.R.D. Property, correspondence; Donald G. Sturges; April 1, 1946; 

SRDB Ref ID: 21829, pdf pp. 216-217 

Unknown author, unknown date, Lamp Division 'By-Product' Speeded Bomb; unknown author; 

unknown date; SRDB Ref ID: 39824 

Unknown author, 1940, Lamp Research at Bloomfield; Unknown author; 1940; SRDB Ref ID: 39839 

Unknown author, 1958, Westinghouse: First in Atomic Power, report; unknown author; October 1958; 

SRDB Ref ID: 39844 

Unknown author, 1966, Chronology of Significant Events in the Development of Atomic Power 

Beginning November 8, 1936, partial chronology ends February 1949, unknown author; 1966; SRDB 

Ref ID: 39802 

Voigt, 1985, Certification of the Radiological Condition of the Rohm & Haas Company, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania; William R. Voigt; January 1985; SRDB Ref ID: 6953, pdf pp. 115-117 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL WAPDP

36 of 48 

Westinghouse, unknown date-a, Discussion Document 800; Westinghouse Atomic Power 

Development Plant; unknown date; SRDB Ref ID: 6953, pdf pp. 109-110 

Westinghouse, unknown date-b, Map of Research Laboratories; Westinghouse Electric Corporation 

(Westinghouse); unknown date; SRDB Ref ID: 39826 

Westinghouse, 1936 & 1946, Top View of East Pittsburgh Floor Plant, including streets and 

buildings; Westinghouse; September 12, 1936 and October 19, 1946; SRDB Ref ID: 39778 

Westinghouse, 1942, History of Westinghouse Research Laboratories, select pages only; 

Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company; 1942; SRDB Ref ID: 39831 

Westinghouse, 1946, Status Update, correspondence, Westinghouse Electric Corporation; April 15, 

1946; SRDB Ref ID: 21829, pdf p. 220 

Westinghouse, 1950, Through the Years with Westinghouse, select pages from the First Edition; 

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 1950; SRDB Ref ID: 39779 

Westinghouse, 2008, History of Research & Technology, Westinghouse; 

http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/our_company/Research_&_Technology/history_research_techn

ology.shtm; website last accessed March 4, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 44809 

Westinghouse Engineer, 1946, Westinghouse Uranium Production, select pages from text; 

Westinghouse Engineer; January 1946; SRDB Ref ID: 39795 

Westinghouse, various dates, Assorted Westinghouse-related historical documents on research 

activities; various authors and dates; SRDB Ref ID: 6927 

Woodbury, 1948, Battlefronts of Industry: Westinghouse in World War II, uranium chapter (22) and 

isotopes chapter (23); David O. Woodbury; 1948; SRDB Ref ID: 39853 and 55627 

Worthington, 2008, Forest Hills Location Designation Change and Addition to Covered Facility List, 

correspondence that includes supporting documentation; Patricia Worthington, Department of Energy 

Office of Health and Safety; June 12, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 47843 
SEC-00096 1-21-09 FINAL 

Attachment 1: Data Capture Synopsis 

Table A1-1: Data Capture Synopsis for Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant 

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description Co

Primary Site/Company Name: Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant. 1942 -1944; AWE Other Site Names: East Pittsburgh Plant Westinghouse collection located at the Senator John Heinz History Center, Pittsburgh, PA 

Annual report, general information on atom smasher, famous Westinghouse firsts, chronology of Westinghouse events from 1867-1980, top view of streets and buildings of East Pittsburgh, through the years with Westinghouse, atoms to zirconium, photographs of East Pittsburgh exterior, chronology of significant events in the development of atomic power, a brief background of the Westinghouse Lamp Division, Lamp Division 'by-product' speeded bomb, map of research laboratories, and Westinghouse uranium discussions and photos. 

12

State Contacted: Mr. David Allard, CHP, Director PA Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Radiation Protection (717-787-2480) 

No relevant data identified. 02

RIDC Keystone Commons, current Property Manager 

No relevant data identified. 12

Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data Resource (CEDR) 

No relevant data identified. 08

Department of Energy (DOE) Trip reports, Forest Hills location designation change and addition to 

covered facility list along with supporting documentation, communications between AEC and Westinghouse, methods of separating U-233 from thorium, production of tritium and U-233, and use of thorium as pile flattering material. 

06

DOE Germantown Beryllium hazards. UDOE Hanford Declassified Document Retrieval System (DDRS) 

No relevant data identified. 08

DOE Legacy Management Considered Sites 

Uranium procurement, certification docket, and preliminary survey. 10

Legacy Management - Grand Junction Disposition of thoria scrap, request for uranium - requisition P-57, 

shipment of chemical KB-2, and shipment of uranyl nitrate. 

04

DOE Legacy Management - MoundView List of contractors, survey of normal uranium scrap materials, 05

37 of 48 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL 

Table A1-1: Data Capture Synopsis for Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant 

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description 

Co

(Fernald Holdings, includes Fernald Legal Database) 

thorium-related documents, transfer and progress reports. 

DOE OpenNet No relevant data identified. 01DOE OSTI Status for pressurized water reactivity accident analysis. 09DOE OSTI Energy Citations WRAP module 1 sampling strategy and waste characterization 

alternatives study. 

08

DOE OSTI Information Bridge Mixed waste information. 08DOE Protecting Human Subjects (CEDR) No relevant data identified. 08ORAU Team Atom smasher incident and correspondence. 10General Atomics Nuclear material transfer reports. 11Google IEEE milestones Westinghouse atom smasher, atomic energy for 

military purposes official report on the development of the Atomic Bomb, and history of research and technology. 

08

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Various laboratory contracts. 02NARA Atlanta Thorium rolling and request for U-238 photo fission study. 05NARA San Bruno FRC Summaries of fuels and materials. 01National Academies Press (NAP) No relevant data identified. 08National Institute of Health No relevant data identified. 08National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) - Nevada Site Office 

No relevant data identified. 08

NRC Agencywide Document Access and Management (ADAMS) 

SNM license, inspections, and air sampling. 08

SAIC Radiation exposure summary. 09Viacom Radiation survey and facility description. 06Washington State University (U.S. Transuranium and Uranium Registries) 

No relevant data identified. 08

Washington University Libraries - St. Louis 

No relevant data identified. 08

Unknown Elimination report for WAPDP, air dust samples, IH and radiation 

audits, and a facility description. 

09

Total 

38 of 48 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL 

Table A1-2: Database Searches for Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant 

Database/Source Keywords 

DOE Legacy Management Considered Sites http://csd.lm.doe.gov/ COMPLETED 10/17/2007 

N/A 

DOE OpenNet http://www.osti.gov/opennet/advancedsearch.jsp COMPLETED 01/05/2008 

Westinghouse after 12/31/1941 "East Pittsburgh"" "westinghouse atomic power development" "Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant" No key word used. Rather searched all documents for generation dates between Jan 1, 1939 and Dec 31, 1945 

"pittsburgh" along with a bracketing dates of 01/01/1939 and 12/31/1945. "Westinghouse Electric" Manufacturing 

DOE Energy Citations http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/ COMPLETED 08/19/2008 

"Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant" "East Pittsburg Plant" Forest Hills Westinghouse 

CEDR http://cedr.lbl.gov/ COMPLETED 08/21/2008 

Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant "East Pittsburgh Plant" Forest Hills 

DOE Hanford DDRS Westinghouse (period 1942 – 1946) 

39 of 48 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL 

Table A1-2: Database Searches for Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant 

Database/Source Keywords 

http://www2.hanford.gov/declass/ COMPLETED 08/21/2008 WAPD 

Forest Hills Westinghouse 

DOE OSTI Information Bridge http://www.osti.gov/bridge/advancedsearch.jsp COMPLETED 08/21/2008 

"Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant" "Westinghouse" "East Pittsburgh" No key word used. Rather searched all documents for generation dates between Jan 1, 1940 and Dec 31, 1945 "Westinghouse Research Lab" "East Pittsburgh" "Stagg Field" "Westinghouse Electric" Manufacturing "Westinghouse Research Laboratories" "Manhattan Project" Forest Hills Westinghouse 

National Academies Press http://www.nap.edu/ COMPLETED 08/21/2008 

"Westinghouse" "East Pittsburgh" "Forest Hills" 

National Institute of Health http://www.nih.gov/ COMPLETED 08/21/2008 

"Forest Hills" 

40 of 48 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL 

Table A1-2: Database Searches for Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant 

Database/Source Keywords 

NNSA - Nevada Site Office www.nv.doe.gov/main/search.htm COMPLETED 08/21/2008 

Westinghouse WAPD "Forest Hills" 

NRC ADAMS Reading Room http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html COMPLETED 08/21/2008 

Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Westinghouse (period 1942 – 1960) Westinghouse electric" & "East Pittsburgh" "Forest Hills" 

U.S. Transuranium & Uranium Registries http://www.ustur.wsu.edu/ COMPLETED 08/21/2008 

Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant "East Pittsburgh Plant" Forest Hills 

Washington University Library - St. Louis http://library.wustl.edu/ COMPLETED 08/21/2008 

"Forest Hills" 

Google http://www.google.com COMPLETED 08/26/2008 

Enrico Fermi and Westinghouse and Stagg "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" americium, OR Am241, OR Am-241, OR "AM 241", OR 241Am, OR 241-Am, OR "241 Am" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" ionium, OR Th230, OR Th-230, OR "Th 230", OR 230Th, OR 230-Th, OR "230 Th" 

41 of 48 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL 

Table A1-2: Database Searches for Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant 

Database/Source Keywords 

"Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" neptunium, OR Np237, OR Np-237, OR "Np 237", OR 237Np, OR 237-Np, OR "237 Np" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" polonium, OR Po210, OR Po-210, OR "Po 210", OR 210Po, OR 210-Po, OR "210 Po" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" thorium, OR Th232, OR Th-232, OR "Th 232", OR 232Th, OR 232-Th, OR "232 Th", OR "Z metal", OR myrnalloy, OR "chemical 10-66", OR "chemical 10-12" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" UX1, OR UX2, OR Th-234, OR Th234, OR "Th 234", OR 234-Th, OR 234Th, OR "234 Th" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" tritium, H3, H-3, mint, HTO "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" uranium, OR U233, OR U-233, OR "U 233", OR 233U, OR 233-U, OR "233 U", OR U234, OR "U 234", OR U-234, OR 234U, OR 234-U, OR "234 U" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" U235, OR "U 235", OR U-235, OR 235-U, OR 235U, OR "235 U", OR U238, OR "U 238", OR U-238, OR 238-U, OR 238U, OR "238 U" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" U308, OR "U 308", OR U-308, OR 308-U, OR 308U, OR "308 U", OR "uranium extraction", OR "black oxide", OR "brown oxide" 

42 of 48 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL 

Table A1-2: Database Searches for Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant 

Database/Source Keywords 

"Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" "green salt", OR "orange oxide", OR "yellow cake", OR UO2, OR UO3, OR UF4, OR UF6, OR C-216, OR C-616, OR C-65, OR C-211, OR U3O8 "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" plutonium, OR Pu-238, OR Pu238, OR "Pu 238", OR 238Pu, OR 238-Pu, OR "238 Pu", OR Pu-239, OR Pu239, OR "Pu 239", OR 239Pu, OR 239-Pu, OR "239 Pu" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" Pu-240, OR Pu240, OR "Pu 240", OR 240Pu, OR 240-Pu, OR "240 Pu", OR Pu-241, OR Pu241, OR "Pu 241", OR 241Pu, OR 241-Pu, OR "241 Pu" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" radium, OR Ra226, OR Ra226, OR "Ra 226", OR 226-Ra, OR 226Ra, OR 226-Ra, OR Ra-228, OR Ra228, OR "Ra 228", OR 228Ra, OR 228-Ra, OR "228 Ra" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" radon, OR Rn222, OR Rn222, OR "Rn 222", OR 222Rn, OR 222-Rn, OR "222 Rn" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" thoron, OR Rn220, OR Rn220, OR "Rn 220", OR 220Rn, OR 220-Rn, OR "220 Rn" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" protactinium, OR Pa-234m, OR Pa234m, OR "Pa 234m", OR 234mPa, OR 234mPa, OR "234m Pa" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" strontium, OR Sr90, OR Sr90, OR "Sr 90", OR 90-Sr, OR 90Sr, OR "90 Sr" 

43 of 48 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL 

Table A1-2: Database Searches for Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant 

Database/Source Keywords 

"Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" oralloy, OR postum, OR tuballoy, OR "uranyl nitrate hexahydrate", OR UNH, OR K-65, OR "sump cake" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" uranium dioxide, OR "uranium tetrafluoride", OR "uranium trioxide" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" uranium hexafluoride, OR accident, OR "air count" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" "air dust", OR "air filter", OR "airborne test" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" alpha, OR "belgian congo ore", OR bioassay, OR bio-assay "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" breath, OR "breathing zone", OR BZ, OR calibration, OR columnation "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" contamination, OR curie, OR denitration, OR "denitration pot" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" derby, OR regulus, OR dose, OR dosimeter "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" dosimetric, OR dosimetry, OR electron, OR environment "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" "Ether-Water Project", OR exposure, OR "exposure investigation", OR "radiation exposure" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" external, OR "F machine", OR fecal, OR "feed material", OR femptocurie, OR 

44 of 48 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL 

Table A1-2: Database Searches for Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant 

Database/Source Keywords 

film, OR fission, OR fluoroscopy "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" "Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program", OR FUSRAP, OR gamma-ray, OR "gas proportional", OR "gaseous diffusion" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" health, OR "health instrument", OR "health physics", OR "H.I.", OR HI, OR HP, OR "highly enriched uranium", OR HEU "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh", hydrofluorination, OR "in vitro", OR "in vivo", OR incident, OR ingestion, OR inhalation, OR internal "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" investigation, OR isotope, OR isotopic, OR "isotopic enrichment", OR "JS Project", OR Landauer, OR "liquid scintillation" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" log, OR "log sheet", OR "log book", OR "low enriched uranium", OR LEU "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" "maximum permissible concentration", OR MPC, OR metallurgy, OR microcurie, OR millicurie "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" "mixed fission product", OR MFP, OR monitor, OR "air monitoring", OR nanocurie, OR "nasal wipe", OR neutron, OR "nose wipe" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" nuclear, OR Chicago-Nuclear, OR "nuclear fuels", OR "nuclear track emulsion", OR "type A" "Westinghouse Electric Corp" "East Pittsburgh" NTA, OR 

45 of 48 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL 

Table A1-2: Database Searches for Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant 

Database/Source Keywords 

"occupational radiation exposure", OR occurrence, OR "ore concentrate", OR "PC Project" beta OR "body burden" OR "chest count" "Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant" -ORAU -NIOSH -EEOICPA "derived air concentration" OR DAC OR gamma-ray "Westinghouse Atomic Development Plant" -ORAU -NIOSH –EEOICPA gamma ray OR "lung count" OR palm "Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant" -ORAU -NIOSH -EEOICPA palmolive OR thoria OR "chemical 1066" "Westinghouse Atomic 

Power Development Plant" -ORAU -NIOSH -EEOICPA "chemical 10 66" OR "chemical 18-12" OR "chemical 1812" "Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant" -ORAU -NIOSH -EEOICPA "chemical 18 12" OR "chemical 1012" OR "chemical 10 12" "Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant" -ORAU -NIOSH -EEOICPA uranium extraction "Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant" -ORAU -NIOSH -EEOICPA beta OR "body burden" OR "chest count" "East Pittsburgh Plant" -ORAU -NIOSH -EEOICPA "derived air concentration" OR DAC OR gamma-ray "East Pittsburgh Plant" -ORAU -NIOSH –EEOICPA "gamma ray" OR "lung count" OR palm "East Pittsburgh Plant" -

46 of 48 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL 

Table A1-2: Database Searches for Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant 

Database/Source Keywords 

ORAU -NIOSH –EEOICPA palmolive OR thoria OR "chemical 1066" "East Pittsburgh Plant" -ORAU -NIOSH -EEOICPA "chemical 10 66" OR "chemical 18-12" OR "chemical 1812" "East Pittsburgh Plant" -ORAU -NIOSH -EEOICPA "chemical 18 12" OR "chemical 1012" OR "chemical 10 12" "East Pittsburgh Plant" -ORAU -NIOSH -EEOICPA "chemical 1012" OR "chemical 10 12" OR "uranium extraction" "East Pittsburgh Plant " -ORAU -NIOSH -EEOICPA collimation OR photofluorography OR "uranium aluminum alloy" "East Pittsburgh Plant" -ORAU -NIOSH -EEOICPA UAlx OR x-ray-screening OR "uranium aluminide" "East Pittsburgh Plant " -ORAU -NIOSH –EEOICPA collimation OR photofluorography OR "uranium aluminum alloy" "Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant" -ORAU -NIOSH -EEOICPA UAlx OR "uranium aluminide" OR "x-ray screening" "Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant" -ORAU -NIOSH -EEOICPA thorium billets slugs "Forest Hills" -NIOSH –ORAU Hanford thorium "Forest Hills" -NIOSH -ORAU uranium Westinghouse "Forest Hills" -NIOSH -ORAU -Canadian 

47 of 48 
SEC-00096 01-21-09 FINAL 

48 of 48 

Table A1-2: Database Searches for Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant 

Database/Source Keywords 

-high westinghouse thorium "Forest Hills" -NIOSH -ORAU -high Westinghouse contamination "Forest Hills" -ORUA -NIOSH -school Westinghouse slugs "Forest Hills" -ORUA -NIOSH -school "Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant" 

Table A1-3: OSTI Documents Ordered for Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plan

Document Number Document Title Requested Data 

No documents ordered N/A N/A N/A